beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. This Court shall have regard to cases of application for suspension of enforcement in this Court 2014 Chicago1571.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant seizes movables in the attached Form No. 300 million won in face value, C, D Co., Ltd. (representative director C), the date of issuance, April 25, 2014, and the date of payment on a promissory note No. 3888, which entered at sight, based on the promissory note No. 388, 2014, the notary public filed an application for seizure of corporeal movables under this Court No. 2014, No. 2932, July 29, 2014. The execution officer affiliated with the above court may recognize the seizure of movables in the attached Form No. 302 (hereinafter referred to as "the movables in this case").
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a director of D Co., Ltd., and on June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 8 million to C. In order to secure the loan’s claim, the Plaintiff entered into a transfer/acquisition agreement with C to acquire the instant movable owned by C to secure the loan’s claim, and a notary public entered into a notarized deed as a law firm member’s certificate No. 1151, 2014, and C’s failure to repay the loan’s debt, and under the said transfer/acquisition agreement, the instant movable property transferred its ownership to the Plaintiff by means of possession alteration, and thus, compulsory execution as to the instant movable is not permissible
B. Determination is based on the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff asserted that the instant movable was leased KRW 8 million from the complaint to C on June 24, 2014; (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the said movable was owned by the Plaintiff; (c) the Plaintiff deposited money to D Co., Ltd., other than C alleged as the borrower; and (d) the Plaintiff received transfer of the instant movable property, which is one of the instant movable property located at the Plaintiff’s residence, by means of an occupancy revision, in light of the empirical rule.